Objective measure of progress

From a dialog on the Philosophy of History and theoretical history list, August 2004

---

In a message dated 8/18/04 10:31:49 AM, brownh@HARTFORD-HWP.COM writes:

> For example, we may be confident that technology has progressed, but
> that assurance whithers when technology is placed into the context of
> the social whole, where its effects may be as destructive as
> beneficial, and where analysis in terms of causation becomes more
> subjective.

Let me jump into this discussion to make an entirely different point, the one we discussed earlier at length. You may recall that you said technical progress was not necessarily progress, while I said it was.

It seems to me that, when you say, “we may be confident that technology has progressed”, you admit my point that it has done so. Our difference comes in when you add “but that assurance whithers when technology is placed into the context of the social whole”

Well, sure, when you use it to answer a different question. But when we do not consider it in those terms, but just as itself, technology has indeed progressed; it can accomplish more and bigger things. Whether you consider the more that it can do to be good or bad isn't the point; it's another point,that should be discussed separately.

Jim Coffeen, who is butting in again

---

> In a message dated 8/18/04 10:31:49 AM, brownh@HARTFORD-HWP.COM
> writes:
>
> >>For example, we may be confident that technology has progressed,
> but that assurance whithers when technology is placed into the
> context of the social whole, where its effects may be as destructive
> as beneficial, and where analysis in terms of causation becomes more
> subjective.<<
>
> Haines:
>
> Let me jump into this discussion to make an entirely different
> point, the one we discussed earlier at length. You may recall that
> you said technical progress was not necessarily progress, while I
> said it was

I have a way of expressing myself that often obscures issues rather than shed light upon them ;-(. I don't think my position on this point though was controversial, but I probably expressed it in an arcane way. Let me briefly go over the ground again.

I believe there is consensus that any discussion of “progress” implies some standard of measurement. We can't just take that standard for granted, as did the Enlightenment. If you think I am mistaken, we certainly must look at the issue more closely, but for the moment I'll assume you go along with this.

If this point is accepted, it follows that what represents progress from one viewpoint is not necessarily progress from another. In 1945, progress in nuclear technology was not progress if you happened to live in Hiroshima.

To escape this subjectivism, it would be nice to speak of the progress of society as a whole. But doing do still requires a definition of “society as a whole,” such as from a systemic or essentialist view, and even then it is hard to get away from a subjective component. It seems to me one might escape this subjectivism through arriving at a (socially) “universal” standpoint, but this would take me far away from the point you raise.

If you don't think “progress” implies a subjective standard of measurement, then we need to debate the point, but otherwise it follows that progress from one viewpoint may not be progress from another, and so progress may not be progress.

I'm not even sure we can speak of technical progress in the narrow sense without qualification.

a) The progress may be headed toward a dead end. In my own state there's talk right now of adding an additional lane to the principal highway. I know very well that within five or ten years after completion the widened highway will encourage more travel and the problem of costly congestion will return. In my view the money and effort would be better spent creating a decent system of public transportation. So, the notion of progress in expanding highway infrastructure remains ambivalent. Progress in the short run may not be progress in the longer view.

b) Progress can create the problem it is designed to address. An example is Bayer pharmaceuticals. It was one of the chemical industries that originated during the Second Industrial Revolution. They had a chemical on hand named acetylsalicylic acid that they found reduced nerve inflammation. To sell it, they invented the headache. I'm sure people were troubled occasionally by headaches before that (although it never seems to show up in the historical record). But now, thanks to Bayer, people are troubled by them all the time. Same thing with sprung furniture in mid 19th century; people were convinced to feel uncomfortable to create a market for overstuffed machine-made (Eastlake) furniture that was equipped with springs.

c) In any system, development in one area necessarily de-develops others (you have to maintain a net positive entropy). Although one can often get away ignoring the consequences of development, sometimes that is impossible. That is, while progress can take place in a subsystem, it will necessarily have the opposite effect in the system as a whole, and sometimes that negative effect impinges on our lives in important ways. Yesterday I read that the Arctic icecap has broken up, so that there is no longer an ice bridge. This could have catastrophic effects on water salinity, on currents, and therefore on climate. This seems to be in large part an effect of technological progress.

d) And even within the narrow field in which progress takes place, whether there is in fact progress depends on the goals and values of the engineers or scientists working for it. One might argue that in many areas, progress is insubstantial, perhaps concerned only with cost reduction and aesthetics. For example, Americans enjoy very inexpensive clothing thanks to the intensive exploitation of labor elsewhere. Even so, the clothing is so shoddy that it does not last very long and is less attractive. Is a pair of trousers these days that costs a fifth (in constant dollars) what they used to, but last only a fifth as long, represent a gain? Even in a narrow field of endeavor, technical progress comes down to what measures we intend to apply.

I'm really arguing caution here and am not suggesting that progress does not take place, only insisting that we not look at it naively. But I sense all this may not quite address your point, and so let me look at another issue.

I do think that if we define technical progress cautiously we may be able to cook up a semi-objective definition. Suppose, for example, that I defined technology as the mental and material equipment that facilitates achieving our goals. We can measure the time and effort needed to achieve a goal, and therefore move toward an objective measurement of the relative the gain from applying a certain technology. For example, if I think up a much more effective torture technique, that represents progress because it enables me to extract what I want to know more surely. True, the effort means I'm a criminal, but that is irrelevant.

If this kind of definition is what you have in mind, at least agree with me that work-reduction is itself a subjective (i.e., arbitrary) standard of measurement. This morning I had to move some things and was aided by three young convicts on a prison release program. It is a great benefit to them to have non-profits call upon their services, for it keeps them out of prison. In chatting with them, it was clear that while work they do is often pleasant enough, there's no reason for them to push themselves. The point of the labor is to engage them in community service, not to maximize their output.

What I'm suggesting is that progress in efficiency or efficacy is itself subjective. In fact, it may be merely an effect of the capitalist economic system and therefore a passing phase of historical development. It strikes me as doubtful that most people in the world, not only in the past, but perhaps even today, think of a cost/benefit ratio. So the measure of technical progress in terms of work reduction rather than need satisfaction may be ideological rather than objective, merely an aspect of a passing historical phase that defines power in terms of economics. Work should be fulfilling, not a burden.

> Seems to me that, when you say, “we may be confident that
> technology has progressed”, you admit my point, that it
> has done so. Our difference comes in when you add “but
> that assurance whithers when technology is placed into the
> context of the social whole”.

I hope you understand that my taking such an ambivalent standpoint on technology allows me to contradict myself ;-)

> Well, sure, when you use it to answer a different question. But
> when we do not consider it in those terms, but just as itself,
> technology has indeed progressed; it can accomplish more and bigger
> things. Whether you consider the more that it can do to be good or
> bad isn't the point; it's another point that should be discussed
> separately.

Your “more and bigger,” in a very general sense, seems akin to my point that if we measure progress in terms of work reduction to achieve our goals, then we can talk about progress in more objective terms. Although work reduction, as I pointed out, is itself a subjective or ideological value, at least in the modern world, to the extent it have become nearly universal, to the extent capitalism transforms all social relations, it can be taken as a semi-objective measurement that refers to a particular state in history.

I understand your point that “more and bigger may not be “better,” but it does leave hanging the question, so what? That is, what is the historical significance of “more and bigger”? I could argue at excruciating length that indeed “more and bigger” is better in history, but no one would agree with me. In lieu of that song and dance, I think you need to explain why “more and bigger” has any positive historical significance.

Haines Brown